Hi everyone,
A couple clarifications are needed...
1. If Character A defeats a Henchman, and is then able to try and close the location the Henchman was in, can that player choose to wait for Character B's turn to come to that location and attempt to close it, without having to go through the entire deck?
2. Also, same question, but instead, assume Character A and B are at the same location when Character A defeats the henchman; can Character B then attempt to close on that same turn?
3. Last one; does the discard pile need to remain face-down, or can we cycle through it at our leisure, just to see what we've lost?
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi everyone,
A couple clarifications are needed...
1. If Character A defeats a Henchman, and is then able to try and close the location the Henchman was in, can that player choose to wait for Character B's turn to come to that location and attempt to close it, without having to go through the entire deck?
2. Also, same question, but instead, assume Character A and B are at the same location when Character A defeats the henchman; can Character B then attempt to close on that same turn?
3. Last one; does the discard pile need to remain face-down, or can we cycle through it at our leisure, just to see what we've lost?
Thanks!
1. Nope. Person who defeated henchmen either attempts close, and if you choose not to it stays open until you empty the location and then you may TRY again to close it. Just FYI an empty location is not auto-closed.
2. Nope. Only the active player may attempt location closes. Other players may assist by adding blessing etc, but it is the person whose turn it is that must close.
3. Discard piles are supposed to be discarded faceup. So yes, you may look through it... but you shouldn't rearrange it, due to locations like the apothecary that care about the order it is in.
Gotcha! Thank you so much for the prompt response.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually house rule that if another character is at the same location, we get to choose which character closes the location, which is what happens if a temporary closing situation comes up. More importantly there is currently very little incentive for characters to stay in the same location beyond healing and specific powers yet there are MANY location cards that interacts with multiple character per location. I personally belief it was meant to be a push your luck mechanism, stay together and risk AOE or seperate and avoid that. However it doesn't work if there are so little reasons to stay togther.
I sometimes think that a good strategy is to empty a location that is tough to close but don't even try and close it so you can try and corner the villain there if he escapes then it will autoclose when you beat him.
sounds very time-consuming. On our 6-character playthroughs, it frequently boils down to how high we roll on the Holy Candle - I can't imagine having enough time to empty the locations.
Well, I think the strategy would work well, but you don't really need to empty the location first.
We often go to the locations that we feel the most confident in closing first. If the villain happens to be in one of them, he will end up escaping to one of the locations that we are less confident in our ability to close. Then we'll either encounter a henchman in that location and succeed at closing it leaving only the villain there, or if we fail to close it we'll eventually encounter the villain there. If we did manage to empty a location of all cards but were woefully unable to close it, we'd have to go seeking the villain elsewhere to force him to there.
Agreed. You don't need to empty a location if you plan on fighting the villain there.
If the villain is in a location deck, his/her location inside of that deck is random. So on average, you will find him/her halfway through the deck. So if you wait until the villain is in a deck to explore it (which would be impossible to actually know unless it's the only location for him to escape to), then you will (on average) only have to clear half of that deck instead of all of it.
Not a problem at all in my duo game, since we rarely run down the timer very much, but it would be something to keep in mind for a 5-6 player game.
I actually house rule that if another character is at the same location, we get to choose which character closes the location, which is what happens if a temporary closing situation comes up. More importantly there is currently very little incentive for characters to stay in the same location beyond healing and specific powers yet there are MANY location cards that interacts with multiple character per location. I personally belief it was meant to be a push your luck mechanism, stay together and risk AOE or seperate and avoid that. However it doesn't work if there are so little reasons to stay togther.
I agree with you on the lack of incentive. Ruling on this in our own personal games may help generate more of a "tactical risk" then what is currently present in the game. I may just house rule this way myself.
I actually house rule that if another character is at the same location, we get to choose which character closes the location, which is what happens if a temporary closing situation comes up. More importantly there is currently very little incentive for characters to stay in the same location beyond healing and specific powers yet there are MANY location cards that interacts with multiple character per location. I personally belief it was meant to be a push your luck mechanism, stay together and risk AOE or seperate and avoid that. However it doesn't work if there are so little reasons to stay togther.I agree with you on the lack of incentive. Ruling on this in our own personal games may help generate more of a "tactical risk" then what is currently present in the game. I may just house rule this way myself.
That's what I do as well. I have other house-rules that make the game more difficult so that the change doesn't make the game too easy, but I think letting any player at a location attempt the close check just makes more sense and is less frustrating. It's always a pain when the one time a character goes into a location with a difficult check for them, they end up fighting the henchman.
And as Zentaur stated, there just isn't really much of a reason for players to group up unless their powers or cards explicitly only work if they're at the same location.
But accurate.
That house rule incredibly nerfs the game. But it's your game -- just so long as you don't gripe about how easy the game is.
Well, it makes it more fun for me, so that's really all that matters I think :/
Plus, we have plenty of rules making it more difficult, this just lowers the frustration levels for us.
I suspect you won't want to use your rule for Skull & Shackles.
I'm going to assume you meant the house rule I mentioned.
The irony is that I generally don't house rule games but I feel this makes it so much more tactical. So I hope S&S is going to give us more reasons to stick characters in the same location OR, even better, punish players for seperating, which is the current dominant strategy.
Finally, its just plain cruel to make such a statement if you don't plan to tell us more...
I'll give you one more word on the topic:
Ships.
I like this already! :D
I won't ask how you guys are implementing that, but I'm betting it's AWESOME! :D
:DDDDDDD
|
I just starting GM'ing S&S a few weeks ago (Man's Promise starts off the night next time we play!), and I'm really looking forward to the PACG version. Playing the RPG of it now makes vague comments like above so much harder to take!!! I'm guessing certain banes are ships that are required to beat to close locations, and even a powerful player isn't going to single handedly destroy an entire ship.